Dr. Mbita Chitala’s Outdated and Misleading Analysis of Zambia’s Economy
By Magret Mwanza_
Dr. Mbita Chitala’s recent article, “Zambia Continues to Be a Victim of Wizard Economics,” is yet another example of his tendency to rely on outdated, socialist rhetoric rather than providing a clear, evidence-based economic analysis.
Instead of presenting alternative solutions to Zambia’s economic challenges, Chitala resorts to scare tactics, using phrases like “voodoo economics” and “indirect genocide” to manipulate public sentiment. However, a closer look at his arguments exposes their lack of economic logic and their deliberate distortion of facts.
Chitala attacks the government’s efforts to reduce the budget deficit from 3.1% of GDP in 2025 to 0.7% in 2027, arguing that this will “under-develop” Zambia.
This claim is absurd. Fiscal discipline is a key principle in economic management, and reducing deficits ensures long-term sustainability. A bloated deficit means excessive borrowing, which would only sink Zambia deeper into debt. Does Chitala propose that we return to reckless deficit spending, which fueled inflation and economic stagnation during the PF era?
Furthermore, he claims that lowering government spending from 26.6% to 24.8% of GDP is disastrous. However, he fails to acknowledge that a significant portion of government expenditure in the past was wasted on corruption, inflated contracts, and an unsustainable wage bill.
Fiscal consolidation is not about starving the economy but about ensuring efficient spending. Unlike the PF regime, which prioritized patronage networks, the UPND-led government is prioritizing developmental expenditure that actually benefits Zambians.
Chitala’s argument that increasing domestic revenue collection amounts to “indirect genocide” is not just irresponsible but outright misleading.
No government in the world can function without taxation. The proposed increase in domestic revenue from 18% to 21.2% of GDP is aimed at improving public services, infrastructure, and social welfare programs. Chitala deliberately ignores that this tax collection increase is largely based on efficiency—closing loopholes, improving compliance, and ensuring that corporations (including mining companies) pay their fair share.
Moreover, his claim that mining taxes have been reduced is dishonest. The UPND government has adjusted mineral royalty tax policies to attract investment while still ensuring revenue collection. Under the previous regime, mining companies faced erratic taxation policies that deterred investment, leading to job losses and reduced production.
A stable and predictable tax regime is essential for long-term economic growth, something that Chitala should understand if he is truly interested in development rather than scoring political points.
Chitala also criticizes Zambia’s ongoing debt restructuring efforts, falsely claiming that the government has marginalized China and Russia. This is an outright lie.
In reality, Zambia has engaged all its creditors—including China—through the G20 Common Framework, which has led to significant progress in debt restructuring negotiations.
The challenge has not been Zambia’s lack of diplomacy but the complex nature of debt resolution, which requires coordination among multiple lenders. Chitala conveniently ignores that under the PF government (which he once supported), Zambia borrowed recklessly without clear repayment plans, leading to the current debt crisis.
It is also worth noting that Dr. Chitala himself was a key figure in Zambia’s economic mismanagement in the 1990s and 2000s, having served in various economic and diplomatic roles.
He was part of the leadership that made Zambia over-reliant on debt and inefficient parastatals. His credibility on economic matters is therefore questionable, as his past policies contributed to Zambia’s economic struggles.
Another glaring flaw in Chitala’s article is his attack on monetary policy. He criticizes plans to increase interest rates, claiming that this will stifle investment and cause a recession.
What he fails to mention is that Zambia is battling inflation, and raising interest rates is a necessary tool to stabilize the economy. The alternative—keeping interest rates artificially low—would lead to uncontrolled inflation, devaluing people’s incomes and savings.
No serious economist would suggest ignoring inflationary pressures just to encourage reckless borrowing. Furthermore, his argument that increasing reserve requirements will reduce money supply and destabilize banks is misleading.
Reserve requirements are adjusted to ensure liquidity is controlled in a way that prevents economic overheating. The government and Bank of Zambia are taking calculated steps to balance growth with financial stability. Again, Chitala offers no alternative policy—just alarmist rhetoric.
The real issue with Dr. Chitala’s economic thinking is that he remains stuck in a 1960s developmental state model that has been proven unsustainable.
He advocates for excessive government intervention and deficit spending while ignoring the realities of a modern, globally integrated economy.
The notion that Zambia can just “spend its way out of poverty” without regard for fiscal discipline is outdated and reckless. Chitala’s nostalgia for socialist-era economic policies is misplaced.
Countries that have successfully lifted millions out of poverty—like Rwanda and Ethiopia—have done so through a mix of sound economic policies, private sector growth, and targeted government interventions.
They did not rely on outdated economic models that focus on government expansion at the expense of efficiency.
Instead of attacking the government without offering solutions, Chitala should acknowledge that Zambia’s economy needs long-term reforms.
Some of the necessary steps include economic diversification—moving beyond mining and expanding into agriculture, manufacturing, and technology; investment in human capital—strengthening education and vocational training to equip Zambians with the skills needed for modern industries; strengthening fiscal discipline—ensuring that government spending is efficient and focused on growth-oriented projects; and supporting SMEs—encouraging entrepreneurship by reducing bureaucratic barriers and ensuring access to credit.
Unlike Chitala’s empty rhetoric, these are practical steps that will help Zambia achieve sustainable economic growth. The UPND government has already shown commitment to these reforms, and while challenges remain, the focus should be on solutions rather than outdated socialist fantasies.
Dr. Mbita Chitala’s article is nothing more than a political hit piece masquerading as economic analysis.
He deliberately misrepresents Zambia’s fiscal and monetary policies, ignores economic realities, and provides no credible alternatives.
His outdated economic thinking is part of the reason Zambia struggled for decades with inefficiency and debt.
If he truly cares about Zambia’s economic future, he should engage in constructive dialogue instead of peddling sensationalism and misleading narratives. Zambia needs modern, evidence-based economic policies—not Chitala’s 1960s nostalgia.